NBA "Likely" going to advertisement on jerseys

[CS85]

Absolute.

Inexcusable.

Unspeakable.

BLASPHEMY.

[tBBP]

Well, since it appears "Doomsday" is afoot...who wants to start throwing out guesses as to what team will have what sponsor patch?

[Billy B]

If this means that Reinsdorf actually decides that he can start spending into the luxury tax, I'm gonna be a lot less disappointed about these.

[JaxNoles]

Only hope now is that the Mayans were right and we won't have to live to see this.

[elliott]

Alright, obviously we all hate this from an aesthetic standpoint. What I'm curious about is how effective the advertising would be. Does anyone have that sort of information in terms of the effectiveness of ads on the front of high-profile soccer teams jerseys? I'm studying advertising after a brief stint as an art student, and this is a pretty good example of those worlds clashing. But I suspect that these will be incredibly lucrative ads. Especially if the NBA eventually converts to ads in the place of wordmarks like in soccer.

It seems to me that this would be an absolute gold mine for advertising. I was studying abroad and we were learning a lot about the increasing inability for brands to connect with consumers. It's becoming easier and easier for consumers to just tune out advertising that they don't want to see, so advertising has to be engaging and able to draw in the public's attention. TV advertising is so easy to skip with DVR so this seems to be the logical next step, I mean if people aren't paying to the advertising in the 2 minute breaks between game action, then they have to show you the same advertisements DURING the game action.

The company would be able to create brand awareness throughout the entirety of the regulation time during the NBA game and would likely have other high profile sponsorships during commercial breaks as well. We'd see the ad during the games, then after on the Sportscenter Top 10, and then outside plastered on the chests of countless fans. You'd probably gain brand equity as well, meaning that consumers who are fans of the team already have positive views of the franchise, and those positive views would translate to say McDonalds as well, even if they didn't love McDonalds before hand.

If you look at the numbers , it's going to be high cost but tremendously high return for these companies. Cost is what, 1 million, 2 million, for the ad? However much the NBA charges. But then the Reach and Frequency are going to be very, very high. Millions of impressions that are far more effective than TV ads because people can't ignore it and because fans will become mini billboards walking around every day.

I'm making the assumption that the ads will be across the chest like in soccer in the future, I mean it would be less lucrative if it is 2.5x2.5 squares, but it would still be an expensive ad to buy. Still, from an advertising standpoint, it makes sense, and it will probably happen soon. If the NBA lockout taught us anything it's that the owners and the players are both very greedy groups who enjoy their money. So if they get the opportunity to divide up another 100-300 million amongst themselves, they might take it, even if it's at the expense of ruining the integrity of the uniforms that they wear.

I'd say that fan backlash is probably one of the strongest weapons to combat the inevitability of ads on NBA jerseys. I don't see soccer fans complaining though, even if they are boldly repping a filthy rich Russian or Arab company.

[tBBP]

Alright, obviously we all hate this from an aesthetic standpoint. What I'm curious about is how effective the advertising would be. Does anyone have that sort of information in terms of the effectiveness of ads on the front of high-profile soccer teams jerseys? I'm studying advertising after a brief stint as an art student, and this is a pretty good example of those worlds clashing. But I suspect that these will be incredibly lucrative ads. Especially if the NBA eventually converts to ads in the place of wordmarks like in soccer.

It seems to me that this would be an absolute gold mine for advertising. I was studying abroad and we were learning a lot about the increasing inability for brands to connect with consumers. It's becoming easier and easier for consumers to just tune out advertising that they don't want to see, so advertising has to be engaging and able to draw in the public's attention. TV advertising is so easy to skip with DVR so this seems to be the logical next step, I mean if people aren't paying to the advertising in the 2 minute breaks between game action, then they have to show you the same advertisements DURING the game action.

The company would be able to create brand awareness throughout the entirety of the regulation time during the NBA game and would likely have other high profile sponsorships during commercial breaks as well. We'd see the ad during the games, then after on the Sportscenter Top 10, and then outside plastered on the chests of countless fans. You'd probably gain brand equity as well, meaning that consumers who are fans of the team already have positive views of the franchise, and those positive views would translate to say McDonalds as well, even if they didn't love McDonalds before hand.

If you look at the numbers , it's going to be high cost but tremendously high return for these companies. Cost is what, 1 million, 2 million, for the ad? However much the NBA charges. But then the Reach and Frequency are going to be very, very high. Millions of impressions that are far more effective than TV ads because people can't ignore it and because fans will become mini billboards walking around every day.

I'm making the assumption that the ads will be across the chest like in soccer in the future, I mean it would be less lucrative if it is 2.5x2.5 squares, but it would still be an expensive ad to buy. Still, from an advertising standpoint, it makes sense, and it will probably happen soon. If the NBA lockout taught us anything it's that the owners and the players are both very greedy groups who enjoy their money. So if they get the opportunity to divide up another 100-300 million amongst themselves, they might take it, even if it's at the expense of ruining the integrity of the uniforms that they wear.

I'd say that fan backlash is probably one of the strongest weapons to combat the inevitability of ads on NBA jerseys. I don't see soccer fans complaining though, even if they are boldly repping a filthy rich Russian or Arab company.

Well...considering the ads are only supposed to be 2x2, its tough to gauge just how effective they'll be. Its likely only we and a few other eagle-eyed "outsiders" would even notice, but then who knows? I guess it also depends on who the advert is for. If its a big-time corporate entity like Visa or Google or something like that, I can't really see it making much of a dent. Now if, say, the Cleveland Cavaliers were to stick a KeyBank patch on their jerseys, or the Oklahoma City Thunder a "Sonic" patch, then it might raise a curiosity or two among those who've never heard of it before, and would then take to their favorite search engine to find out about it. (That is, after all, the #1 objective of advertising...to make a potential consumer aware that a brand/product exists. Not to be confused with marketing, which utilizes advertising in a much more focused method?"target market", for those who know?in order to persuade a potential consumer to buy something.)

That's just my rough guesstimate, anyway.

[elliott]

Well...considering the ads are only supposed to be 2x2, its tough to gauge just how effective they'll be. Its likely only we and a few other eagle-eyed "outsiders" would even notice, but then who knows? I guess it also depends on who the advert is for. If its a big-time corporate entity like Visa or Google or something like that, I can't really see it making much of a dent. Now if, say, the Cleveland Cavaliers were to stick a KeyBank patch on their jerseys, or the Oklahoma City Thunder a "Sonic" patch, then it might raise a curiosity or two among those who've never heard of it before, and would then take to their favorite search engine to find out about it. (That is, after all, the #1 objective of advertising...to make a potential consumer aware that a brand/product exists. Not to be confused with marketing, which utilizes advertising in a much more focused method?"target market", for those who know?in order to persuade a potential consumer to buy something.)

That's just my rough guesstimate, anyway.

True, the 2x2 is a little small to do too much damage. It would still be a baby step into another, larger ad in the future though. And I think that the average consumer would DEFINITELY notice. In the current age of HDTV, I think any NBA fan would notice the logo of a fast food chain or a car company adorning the uniforms of their favorite team. If it was on the replica jerseys that fans purchase it would resonate more. (and even with the distinctions in "advertising" and "marketing" the lines are becoming increasingly blended, marketing includes many different elements of which advertising was once the star but other things, ie consumer research and media mix, have made advertising less important in the grand marketing scheme. even though marketing attempts to reach the target audience, a good advertisement or creative campaign can do just the same thing on its own without the broader marketing elements. All very confusing and blurred stuff)

I just think that a big ad as the wordmark in the style that the WNBA uses would prove to be quite profitable in a popular league with so many high profile stars like the NBA. Don't want to see it happen at all.

[tBBP]

You make a great point about HDTV...I keep forgetting that exists these days. (At some point, I really need to upgrade and come out of the Stone Age.)

[OnWis97]

On 7/20/2012 at 8:21 AM, elliott said:

On 7/20/2012 at 8:04 AM, Buc said:

Well...considering the ads are only supposed to be 2x2, its tough to gauge just how effective they'll be. Its likely only we and a few other eagle-eyed "outsiders" would even notice, but then who knows? I guess it also depends on who the advert is for. If its a big-time corporate entity like Visa or Google or something like that, I can't really see it making much of a dent. Now if, say, the Cleveland Cavaliers were to stick a KeyBank patch on their jerseys, or the Oklahoma City Thunder a "Sonic" patch, then it might raise a curiosity or two among those who've never heard of it before, and would then take to their favorite search engine to find out about it. (That is, after all, the #1 objective of advertising...to make a potential consumer aware that a brand/product exists. Not to be confused with marketing, which utilizes advertising in a much more focused method—"target market", for those who know—in order to persuade a potential consumer to buy something.)

That's just my rough guesstimate, anyway.

 

True, the 2x2 is a little small to do too much damage. It would still be a baby step into another, larger ad in the future though. And I think that the average consumer would DEFINITELY notice. In the current age of HDTV, I think any NBA fan would notice the logo of a fast food chain or a car company adorning the uniforms of their favorite team. If it was on the replica jerseys that fans purchase it would resonate more. (and even with the distinctions in "advertising" and "marketing" the lines are becoming increasingly blended, marketing includes many different elements of which advertising was once the star but other things, ie consumer research and media mix, have made advertising less important in the grand marketing scheme. even though marketing attempts to reach the target audience, a good advertisement or creative campaign can do just the same thing on its own without the broader marketing elements. All very confusing and blurred stuff)

I just think that a big ad as the wordmark in the style that the WNBA uses would prove to be quite profitable in a popular league with so many high profile stars like the NBA. Don't want to see it happen at all.

 

I thought it 2.5 x 2.5. In any case, to whatever extent the bold is correct, it's still big enough to be the "gateway drug".

Today's uni-watch blog had a mock up.

 

Not as tacky as soccer or NASCAR, but out of place. I'll miss these good ol days.

Even as shown in this picture, I think it's an eyesore...but if you think that the team mark will always be larger than the sponsor mark, you are kidding yourself.

[OnWis97]

Also, does anyone have any thoughts about why they are waiting a year? My first thought was the optimistic "maybe they are seeing how negative the reaction is and will pull the plug if it's too negative." But my second was "Maybe they want it to sink in for some time and by 2013 we will not be surprised...easier for fans to swallow, less negative PR."

Or maybe it's just a contracting issue.

[rtrich11]

from CBS Sportsline

LAS VEGAS -- NBA jerseys almost certainly will feature small sponsorship patches on the shoulder area in two years, a move that league officials estimate could generate $100 million in revenues per season.

So that's only a little more than $3 million per team. Is it really going to make that much difference to them?

But as said before, from an aesthetic point of view, it's terrible. A lot of effort is made to make the teams' look unique, attractive, -a brand. With a mismatched BURGER KING, or whatever, patch the uniform identity and message gets uglied. To someone who really gets into uniform design it should feel like watching a western movie on TV and somebody on screen drives by in a new car. It's distracting. It won't make you stop watching a game, of course, but if things progress to the point where the NBA starts looking like soccer clubs, I do wonder if sales of jersies will dip in the U.S. at first. We're just not used to it yet.

[Orgo]

Will they consider putting the logo in the same colours as the uniform itself? I know it may be a stupid idea, but I've always hated looking at soccer kits where the logo clashes with the shirt.

[BBTV]

Also, does anyone have any thoughts about why they are waiting a year? My first thought was the optimistic "maybe they are seeing how negative the reaction is and will pull the plug if it's too negative." But my second was "Maybe they want it to sink in for some time and by 2013 we will not be surprised...easier for fans to swallow, less negative PR."

Or maybe it's just a contracting issue.

Since they're going to be on the replicas, maybe they want to give adidas a lot of lead time to move existing stock and/or set up whatever needs to be set up to put the ads on?

[Arts11]

So I guess if you were to get an authentic jersey, you better do it soon to avoid getting one plastered with ads? Sad to see this happen, but I guess it was inevitable. Just hope the Yankees never have to go this route...

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I've made a version of this observation before (on this board and elsewhere); but it's time to trot it out again.

Companies pay big money for this placement, because, sadly, it works. To illustrate: think of Michael Jordan. You cannot help but also see in your mind's eye the word "Bulls", the word that was written on his uniform in so many pictures. Think of Larry Bird. You see the word "Celtics" in your head.

Now think of David Beckham. What word comes into your memory? That word would be "Sharp", since that is what was on his uniform during his glory days. Think of Thierry Henry. You see "O2".

And this is how it will be in basketball. From now on, when we think of a great basketball star, we will inevitably recall the name of the company whose ad appears on his jersey.

The companies who buy this space are not merely acquiring a spot on a jersey; they are acquiring a spot in our memories for the rest of our lives.

This is sad. It's a kind of pollution. It's ugly in a profound sense, far beyond the aesthetic. It is a cultural crime.

[bosrs1]

Let's pray that this doesn't spread to the other sports!

As long as Bud Selig keeps himself alive by feeding on the blood of the young and virgins MLB should be fine since he's been pretty solidly opposed to it including when a proposal similar to the NBA one came up in 1999. That and being by far the most traditional sport doesn't hurt the cause of keeping the jerseys clean. NHL and NFL however, I expect they'll start whoring theirs out by decade's end.

[TheOldRoman]

So that's only a little more than $3 million per team. Is it really going to make that much difference to them?

I agree with you. The NBA pay scale is by far the most ridiculous in all American sports. If you're a center, you might make $5-8 million a year to be BAD at your job; that's just the going rate. So, this will cover the addition of one really bad player to your team, even though if you are competent in running the team, it should make well more than they are allowed to spend.

This is shortsighted and stupid. It's like a crack addict selling his $300 iPod for $50 just to get another hit. It's not nearly worth it and the benefit will fade almost instantly. Then he will start selling more (TV/larger ad spots) just to get high again/keep up with other teams. Eventually, the crack addict has an empty apartment and the NBA teams look like clowns with dozens of advertisements.

And here's another point these imbecilic owners didn't let sink in - this raises basketball revenue, which will raise the salary cap. So, the Lakers might get $5 million a year from Apple, while the Grizzlies can barely get $800,000 from Hardee's for their sponsorship. Yet the cap will go up for all teams, making it that much harder for the poorer teams to compete. Morons, the whole lot of them.

[StillS]

Today's uni-watch blog had a mock up.

My mock up makes it to a blog

Fame here i come!!!

[patsox]

The mockup of Pau Gasol with the volkswagen ad on his uniform wouldn't look bad at all if the VW logo was colored purple and yellow IMO.

[hormone]

Just to offer my .02. I think this is a horrid idea. From asthetics, the manufacturer logo will never be in "team color" to blend in. They want their brand to stick out like a sore thumb (and they paid for it). Next, how much more money does a league need? They all have PPV and local TV deals, ticket prices are through the roof, each player has his own endorsements (wonder if they will cover patches like Shaq did?) Enough is enough. You can't watch a sport without seeing ads all over the stadium, time outs/pitching changes/whatever sponsored by so and so. The sport/team itself is one of the last "true" things we have left. For example, you have the Boston Celtics. Boston represents the city and Celtics represent the team nickname/Irish heritage. Does all of this need to be brought to you by Coke? I don't mind how the NFL did it on practice jerseys because the manufacturer can get things out with the highlights/interviews from practice, but when it comes to games, they were a clean product. If the NBA will do this, the NHL has to be salivating (especially where Euro players are used to it). My rant is over.